I just don't agree that an AQ dirty bomb attack is any sort of big threat.

If anyone sets off a dirty bomb in the US it'll probably be an angry white guy. I'm far more worried about more Tim McVeighs than I am about more 9/11s.

When I saw the headlines about Bush severing the nuclear cooperation agreement as a "punishment," I became irate, as I usually do when I see the Administration inflicting yet another incredibly dangerous stupidity on the nation. To the point, I mean, of actually not reading the stories. Because I am well aware of how dangerously stupid it is, and I realize we are stuck with anti-American incompetents at least until January, and possibly for all eternity if the ignorant hothead McCain takes over.
Bush's incredible negligence is a topic that books have been written about, and that will be the marvel of wondering historians for millenia, amazed that while no Republic could protect Rome from Caligula, we could have what purports to be a functional State and a Constitution, and yet neither could prevent us from electing Caligula twice.
Thank you for writing this, M.J. Despite raising my blood pressure.

Anyway, Goldberg says that the possibility of attack by A-Q is the greatest threat to us all.

Let's keep things in proportion - we are each far more likely to die in a car crash, from heart disease or cancer, than from any type of terrorist action. Not to dismiss that possibility, but we can't allow it to define us or our government.

BULLSH*T SCAREMONGERING.
Actually, anyone who actually knows something about nuclear physics would laugh his head off about the new "scare" of the "Dirty Bomb".

Here are some FACTS:

[Dirty bombs] would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness - the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material. However, depending on the scenario, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property, and require potentially costly cleanup... Those closest to the RDD would be the most likely to sustain injuries due to the explosion. As radioactive material spreads, it becomes less concentrated and less harmful.

This is good for a hollywood plot line, but in reality there are much more ORDINARY things to worry about which we're totally ignoring -- like the state of our transportation infrastructure.

Personally, I'm not that worried. You need to disperse the "dirty" material, and that requires some know-how.

Goldberg's thesis is similar to that of Suskind's
The Way of the World except that Suskind's emphasis is on a terrorist obtain fissile material from poorly guarded Russian stockpiles.

I call that the Nut with a nuke and find it sufficiently convincing that I question our current Georian policy. We don't need to permit Putin to overrun Georgia. We do need to ensure that defending Georgia's proper interests (as opposed to its "geographic integrity" does not conflict with our overriding interest in dealing with this problem .

He writes that experts believe that there is a 20-50% chance of a WMD attack on a major American city over the next decade. He is referring to the so-called "dirty bomb." He maintains that A-Q is seeking a weapon and will deploy it when it can. (He says that smuggling it into the US should not be hard; just hide it in a cocaine shipment).

He must prevent Al Qaeda, or a Qaeda imitator, from gaining control of a nuclear device and detonating it in America.... The nuclear destruction of Lower Manhattan, or downtown Washington, would cause the deaths of thousands, or hundreds of thousands; a catastrophic depression; the reversal of globalization; a permanent climate of fear in the West; and the comprehensive repudiation of America’s culture of civil liberties.... The hard part is acquiring fissile material; an easier part is the smuggling itself (as the saying goes, one way to bring nuclear weapon components into America would be to hide them inside shipments of cocaine).

In terms of a thermonuclear detonation, Goldberg is simply wrong that once you have fissile material the rest is easy. How many hundreds of millions have North Korea and Iran spent on trying to develop a single nuclear device? Who in the "nuclear club" does Goldberg believe is going to hand such a device over to terrorists? On what evidence?

An executed attack is much less likely than an attempt. All the more reason to get rid of the corrupt and incompetent Republicans before more people die and they use that as an excuse to pitch the Constitution altogether.

Imagine how we could have crushed AQ had we spent all the money we've blown destroying the nation of Iraq on hunting down our true enemies and smashing them?

that article is BULLSHIT

it's a pathetic attempt to exonerate george bush by claiming that "NOBODY COULD HAVE KNOWN"

BULLSHIT

not a single mention of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, or the fact that george bush SAT ON HIS ASS FOR 35 DAYS WITHOUT TAKING A SINGLE FUCKING ACTION TO STOP THE ATTACK

don't try to tell me how hard it is to catch a fucking terrorist is you ain't gonna mention that george bush NEVER EVEN FUCKING TRIED TO CATCH THEM

EVEN AFTER HE WAS TOLD DIRECTLY THAT THE ATTACK WAS GOONA HAPPEN

ever read the speech that the condiliar was supposed to deliver on September 11, 2001 ???

I have

the condiliar was gonna tell us that the most serious threat to America was a rogue missile attack, and try selling the POS missile defense system

so unless the author wants to discuss george bush's criminal malfeasance and TOTAL INCOMPETENCE, he doesn't have the first fucking clue what he's talking about

To be honest, the threat of a dirty bomb attack anywhere is very negligible. The US military itself concluded that such a device would more than likely hurt no one if proper clean-up procedures were undertaken. The real threat naturally is more conventional means of terrorism, or the potential for nuclear armaments to find their way into the wrong hands.

the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material. However, depending on the scenario, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property, and require potentially costly cleanup...

The fear and panic created should not be underestimated. The fear and panic created by 9/11 will be a walk in the park compared to what would result from a "nuclear" dirty bomb detonation. The average citizen isn't going to understand the difference, and those who would take advantage of the situation to cement themselves into positions of power aren't going to explain it to them, they're going to use it to generate even more fear and panic. A dirty bomb would be likely to turn America into a police state for the foreseeable future.

I'm still worried about Al Qaeda dropping anthrax on our cities using crop dusters. They were so sneaky that they eluded the 'best efforts' of the FBI for 7 years and then set up Bruce Ivins to take the fall. Diabolical!

...where is yidland located?

Right outside Jew York, of course!!

Most of the contributors to TPM argue/claim that it is highly unlikely that a nuclear explosion will go off in the United States. I just don't see it that way. Google General Alexander Lebed, former Russian Security Council Secretary, and follow the threads that sprout from his name. Some of the information is reactionary and speculative, but much of it is expert and very alarming. Obtaining a nuclear device may not be as much of a hill climb as we would hope.

Law enforcement was obviously unable to prevent the second World Trade Center attack . . . . Jeff Goldberg (emphasis added)

Anyone who makes a conclusory factual assertion which is central to his argument but which is left to stand unsupported by a scintilla of evidence doesn't deserve to be published in The Times.

Note: Obama isn't arguing in favor of turning the "war" over to the fat, desk-bound law enforcement careerists and opportunists former administrations and Congresses thought were adequate. Is he?

@Ellen Your use of the term dyslexic is curious, in that it fits with a strange thought I have had. Let me add some more fuel to that fire. Should we not at least wonder if MJ and O2U are one and the same person? Please, O2U, don't cuss me out. I enjoy your comments. But something isn't right about the exchanges between the two.